There is currently a case at the 9th Circuit called Sanchez v. Bonta that has just received major support from the CRPA and others that could lead to major changes to California.

The case Sanchez v. Bonta is currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging California's ban on firearm suppressors. Initially, Mr. Sanchez, representing himself, lost in district court, which ruled suppressors are not protected by the Second Amendment. He appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which then considered appointing him legal counsel. This led to major Second Amendment legal teams—Michel & Associates and Cooper & Kirk—joining the case. Their goal is to establish that suppressors are indeed "arms" and protected under the Second Amendment, forcing the state to justify its ban with historical precedent. The case has gained significance, and its outcome could impact gun rights in California.

A new order just released yesterday by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is once again causing problems in California. This is in regards to SB2 and California's "sensitive location" laws. The cases are May v. Bonta and Carallero v. Bonta

The video on Copper Jacket TV discusses updates on California’s SB2 law and its "sensitive locations" provisions that heavily restrict where firearms can be carried. Two related court cases, May v. Bonta and Carolo v. Bonta, challenged the constitutionality of these restrictions, arguing they made nearly all of California a "sensitive location," violating Second Amendment rights.

Key developments:

1. A federal district court previously issued an injunction blocking enforcement of SB2’s sensitive location provisions.
2. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals partially overturned the injunction, allowing some restrictions to remain, such as bans on carrying firearms in playgrounds, parks, casinos, libraries, and parking areas. However, certain rights were restored, including carrying in hospitals, churches, public transit, and under the "vampire rule" (permitting carry in private businesses unless explicitly prohibited).
3. A request for a rehearing by the full Ninth Circuit (en banc review) was denied, leaving the split decision intact.

Next steps:
The plaintiffs may:

• Return to the district court for a final ruling, or
• Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The video expresses disappointment with the Ninth Circuit’s decision, citing its inconsistency with the Supreme Court's Bruen decision. The host emphasizes the importance of continued legal challenges and legislative changes to address these restrictions.

The No Registry Rights Act, reintroduced by Congressman Michael Cloud and Senator Jim Risch, aims to prohibit the federal government from creating a firearms registry. Key points include:

1. Deleting Existing Records: Mandates the ATF to delete its current database of firearm transaction records, which reportedly contains nearly a billion entries.
2. Preventing Accumulation: Allows Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to destroy records upon closing their businesses, ending the requirement for permanent retention.
3. Prohibiting Future Registries: Bars any federal agency from establishing or maintaining a firearms registry.

The legislation responds to concerns about ATF overreach, including a searchable database created by digitizing records, which critics argue could facilitate a national gun registry. This practice allegedly violates existing federal laws.

The Biden Administration’s policies requiring permanent record retention and a "zero-tolerance" approach to FFL compliance have increased the number of small business closures, further expanding the database.

Advocates for the bill, including Gun Owners of America, the National Rifle Association, and the National Association for Gun Rights, argue the ATF’s practices infringe on Second Amendment rights and threaten privacy. They emphasize the need for vigilance and public support to ensure the legislation passes.

The sponsors encourage citizens to contact their representatives to advocate for this legislation, underscoring its importance to safeguard constitutional freedoms.

The video discusses HB 1132, a controversial gun control bill prefiled in Washington state for 2025. The bill proposes limits on the purchase of firearms and ammunition, restricting individuals to one firearm and 1,000 rounds of standard ammunition (or 100 rounds of .50 caliber) per 30 days. Of course, exceptions apply to government and law enforcement.

CJTV criticizes the bill as a violation of Second Amendment rights and highlights its inconsistency with historical laws or constitutional interpretation, referencing the Supreme Court's Bruen decision. He points out that similar laws, like California's "1 in 30" firearm regulation, have faced judicial challenges and could set a precedent for invalidating HB 1132. However, Washington's bill includes a provision ensuring other parts remain enforceable if sections are overturned.

CJTV urges viewers to read the bill, stay informed, and prepare for potential legal battles against what we view as unconstitutional restrictions.

Today in a massive win for our rights, 13 of 15 circuit court judges voted to restore the rights of Mr. Range. The Third Circuit En Banc panel issued its opinion today providing a path for even more wins.

Copper Jacket TV highlights a major Second Amendment victory involving the case of Brian Range in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Range, a nonviolent felon, lost his gun rights for life after being convicted in 1995 for making a false statement to obtain food stamps during financial struggles. The court ruled that despite his conviction, he remains among "the people" protected by the Second Amendment, and the government failed to justify disarming him based on historical precedent.

The ruling, supported by all but two judges on a 15-judge panel, including Biden and Obama appointees, restored Range’s rights. This decision signals potential broader implications for restoring Second Amendment rights to others in similar situations. The host expresses optimism that this precedent could influence future Supreme Court cases.

A new law which has already partially taken effect in California with the other half set to take effect in 2025 will implement new "merchant category codes". These codes can be used for various purposes by the state including "detection scenarios"

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV! Believe it or not, there's yet another new firearm law in California that we need to talk about, which is going to take effect fairly soon. If you thought California couldn't possibly track you any further, you're going to want to pay attention to this one.

Now, real quick before we get started, a great way to support this channel is to subscribe. It's free, only takes a second, and it really helps us out. Another way to support us is by checking out our main sponsor. Especially if you’re someone who carries for self-defense, having a lawyer in your back pocket is essential. That’s what you get with Attorneys on Retainer.

So, let's dive into what's going on here. In California, things are already tough enough as it is. There are background checks for almost everything, waiting periods, purchase limits, and outright bans. Just about every restriction that can be thought up has been put into law to limit your Second Amendment rights. But this new law takes things a step further.

What we're talking about is the introduction of new Merchant Category Codes. Starting next year, there will be specific codes that categorize purchases related to firearms separately from general sporting goods. So, instead of simply categorizing a purchase as sporting goods, these new codes will identify if you bought firearm-related products.

Now, you might think this isn’t a big deal since California already tracks so much. But you’d be wrong. California can always find ways to use this information against you. Listen to this: A representative from a gun control advocacy group in California mentioned that these Merchant Category Codes can be used to create "detection scenarios." Essentially, they’ll be able to flag patterns in purchasing that could be deemed suspicious, potentially reporting these to law enforcement.

The goal here is not just about separating these category codes. It’s about enabling preventive action — California loves the whole pre-crime concept, which is why they're big on red flag laws. It almost feels like they’re inspired by science fiction movies, constantly coming up with new ways to track and restrict.

For instance, let’s say you go to a store often, maybe three or four times a week. With the new codes, this could appear on a radar as suspicious if your purchases are logged multiple times a month under firearm-related products. This could make you a suspect under their detection scenarios. Who knows how California might use that information? While there are background checks and registration for many things, there are also items that don’t require registration, like buying paper or other miscellaneous items that these stores might sell.

This new law is being rolled out in two stages. The first stage has already happened with the creation of the new category code. Next year, stores will be required to adopt this new code, and if they don’t, there are penalties. Fines could go up to $10,000 per incident for failing to use the code, potentially shutting down businesses that can’t comply. Imagine missing ten transactions — the fine could quickly become astronomical.

California is the starting point, but we’re already seeing other states implement similar measures. Recently, Kathy Hochul in New York signed a bill introducing this in her state, so we’re likely to see this creep into other states soon. However, some states are making it illegal to use Merchant Category Codes specifically for tracking firearm purchases, which shows how divisive and concerning this issue is.

I wanted to make you all aware of this because not many people are talking about it yet. Information is the best tool we have to fight back. Thank you all so much for watching; I really appreciate it. Please like, subscribe, and have a great day!

The stagnant California "Roster" has seen some new life recently due to a decision in a case called Boland v. Bonta. This case got the microstamping requirement overturned. Which is what allows for todays news.

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV! Today, I've got some exciting California roster news for you. We're going to be talking about something that is about to be added to the roster—it’s not there quite yet, but it could be any day now. This is a game changer for California; it’s something Californians have been waiting for decades. So, we're going to talk about what it is and why it's so exciting. Stay tuned!

Hey, real quick before we get started—if you believe that rosters are unconstitutional like I do, and you don't believe the government should be able to tell you what you're allowed to have, go ahead and smash that subscribe button! It's free, it only takes a second, but it helps us out here quite a bit. It helps us spread our Second Amendment message, and it lets the powers-that-be know that you guys enjoy watching content like this. I always appreciate the support—thank you! With that being said, let’s get to it.

Okay, so let’s go and talk about what's going on here. Now, just in case you're not aware of what the roster is—simply put, it’s an unconstitutional government-approved list of handguns available to the state of California. To get on that roster, handguns have to have certain features like magazine disconnects and loaded chamber indicators. They also have to go through a series of tests before they can be approved for the roster. Up until recently, they also had to have microstamping. Microstamping basically does not exist, and it certainly doesn’t exist in mass production, so for a long time, nothing new was being added to the roster.

Currently, there’s an injunction barring enforcement of that microstamping provision, which means that as long as they have the other features, pass the tests, go through the steps, and pay the fees, they can now get on the roster. We've seen a lot of new things start to show up on the roster, but the one thing missing has been any later-generation Glock frames. While the rest of the country has moved on to Gen 4 and Gen 5, California has been stuck at Gen 3. This has been a problem because certain cosmetic features in Gen 3 weren’t popular, and people wanted to get away from them. To do that, you had to do a lot of work to make it similar to what the rest of the country could have.

That’s where this new addition comes in to fix that problem, because Shadow Systems is now going to be on the roster! We’re talking about three new models of Shadow Systems that are about to be added to the roster, and they’re built on Gen 4 frames. This is exciting for me because I remember when the microstamping provision went into effect, and we saw everything fall off the roster. We lost a vast majority of what we could get just a year prior, and it was tough. Going off-roster would eventually catch up with you.

So, seeing something like this being added is fantastic! There are three different models being added: the MR920 (Multi-Role 920), similar to the Glock 19; the DR920 (Duty Role 920), similar to a Glock 17; and the DR920P, which is the compensated version. After testing nearly every Shadow Systems product on this channel over the last seven years, I can say these are well-made, rugged, reliable, durable, and accurate. They come with almost every feature you could ask for if you were getting something custom done. The fluting, the angles of the cuts, and the textures are all there—these models come out of the box as nice as you can get them.

Now, a couple of things to note. If you check the "recently added" section on the roster, you’ll see new items pop up every now and then. Recently, I saw the 365 XL RO pop up, which I think is a cool option, especially for the ladies. New things are being added frequently. However, there’s a new law that’s been passed in California aiming to reimplement microstamping by 2028. If microstamping is added back to the roster, it could cause a freeze or lead to another major drop-off, just like before. So, keep an eye on new laws, even if they don’t seem like they’ll affect you now—they might in the future.

In the meantime, there’s an ongoing lawsuit to overturn the roster completely, which is what I’d like to see. I believe all rosters are unconstitutional. The government shouldn’t have a list of items they allow you to have—it’s our Second Amendment right, not a privilege granted by them. Hopefully, this lawsuit will progress and lead to a positive outcome, possibly reaching the Supreme Court and overturning rosters nationwide.

Anyway, I wanted to share this update. I think it’s a big deal, and I’m looking forward to seeing the reaction of people in California about getting something new like this. Thank you all very much for watching. I really appreciate it. Please like, subscribe, and have a great day!

The Supreme Court is back in session as of Monday October 7th and they have a case before them in Snope v. Brown that could end all bans nationwide. This comes from a 4th circuit decision upholding the Maryland ban.

During a recent interview with Scripps News, the Director of the OGVP admitted that at some time within the next couple weeks we will get new executive actions. Some of which will address the BPSCA and some will be "wholly new".

In this video I break down important developments in rifle and mag ban cases moving forward towards Supreme Court review!